The "Wages of Sin" in an Age of Attention

Even negative attention can increase prestige and power

Once again, as it was last January, American and world attention is riveted on President Bill Clinton, his sexual transgressions, lies, and possible crimes. Hundreds of pages relating to his supposed crimes,including what purport to be the details of each sexual encounter with Monica Lewinsky have spewed out though the Internet, to be downloaded by the entire world.

Despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans believe Clinton is guilty, he retains high popularity as president, and most don't want to see him removed from office. What is interesting here is the way in which even "negative" attention actually plays into its recipient's hands, ultimately increasing both prestige and power.

As President, Clinton has dominated American news for years, his picture appearing several times a week on the front pages of daily newspapers, his visage seen almost nightly on TV news, no matter how slight the occasion or minuscule his actions. He has learned, over the years, bow to add to this, how to make sure to bring himself into the spotlight, and by doing so, to advance the attention we pay him, as the person in the country who quite obviously counts most.

If there is a natural disaster, Clinton shows up; if an entertainer, politician, business man or popular figure of any kind dies, Clinton makes know his condolences. If any sports record is broken, and whenever any notable sports triumph occurs, the successful athletes are invited to the White House, so the President's praise can be recorded. Whenever any visiting dignitary appears, or a peace agreement anywhere on earth is signed, Clinton is sure to be involved, often hosting a state dinner, replete with prominent Hollywood personalities, who impress both the foreign visitors and the American press. Likewise, almost daily he announces some tiny policy initiative or request to Congress, or he very visibly battles the Republican Congressional majority over nearly every piece of proposed legislation.

In all this, of course, as in quite a few of his policies, Clinton has learned from Ronald Reagan, far more aptly that George Bush was able to do in his eight years as Reagan's understudy. Even though Reagan was a professional actor, Clinton is in fact the more polished performer, exhibiting a wider range of emotion, a greater bonding with his audience, a more impressive sincerity, and a greater command and apparent interest in a far larger set of topics.

Most of the President's success is a result of his ability to make the most of the presence of the gigantic White House press corps - over 700 reporters strong. Among them is a full time crew of recognized stars who are practically always on hand, even though Clinton only rarely answers press questions or allows his press secretary to say anything of much substance, and even though Bill and especially Hillary do not much like the press, and reporters continually complain of bad treatment by the White House.

The reporters assigned to the White House clearly gain from any news regarding Clinton they are able to come up with, since this places them in the limelight as well. Unlike the 535 members of Congress or the hundreds of judges and thousands of bureaucrats and diplomats in Washington, the Presidency is occupied by just one person, and stardom is above all a matter for an individual.

Thus, the President stands out, whatever he may do. A reporter linking her face or her name with the President's by appearing on television or signing a newspaper article, no matter how trifling story she recounts, can be a star by association. Further, the best known of such reporters are often asked their opinions, and through their often quite uneducated pontifications, they add to their own celebrity. As they do so, their association with the President adds further to his own standing, a star among stars.

Many of these reporters care little about policy, and know less, but that hardly matters. They can always find some personal angle, and by its nature personal matters always have a more direct effect on the wide audience than do policy pronouncements, which generally require some specialized knowledge to be understood, and often would seem to affect only a small part of the public.

So a sex scandal involving the President-understandable in broad outline by all- guarantees increased attention for those reporting and commenting on it. But it also provides increased attention to the President himself. Congress members, too, in focussing more and more of their own attention on the President's supposed misdeeds, are assuring that some of the President's audience will focus on them personally. But in making this choice, the hundreds of Congress members collectively only increase the total attention going to the unique person who is President.

The details of sex acts offer deep clues to person's psyche. So do questions of guilt or innocence. One can only confront either of these areas by opening oneself to the subject's experiences and deep feelings, and in order to do that, every audience member, no matter how disapproving as a matter of principle, nonetheless must empathize with the perpetrator to some degree, deepening the resonance between him and us.

Despite ourselves, we become more not less attuned to any subsequent claims he might make on our attention, including those that call on us to act in particular ways, say by supporting him against Congress or in voting for Congress members who will not only save him from impeachment but support his programs, while his enemies can hardly hope for matching attention.

None of this would work as well with a President, who, like Richard Nixon in the Watergate case, hides himself away and doesn't venture frequently before the public eye, indeed doesn't even try to "bare his soul" - or what he wants us to believe is his soul- and in any case has little gift for doing so. Clinton himself made little effort to prevent his Grand Jury testimony from being televised unedited within a month, yet nearly a quarter century after Watergate, the audio tapes that incriminated Nixon have still not been broadcast. Clinton's "reluctant" openness is far more to his own advantage.

It remains to be seen whether is Clinton is wily and aware enough to find ways to use his enhanced power, but if his past performance is any guide, he surely is.